Re: [PATCH 2/6] remote-http(s): Support SOCKS proxies

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> On second thought... Junio, could you please sanity-check my claim that
>> this patch:
>>
>> -- snip --
>> ...
>> -- snap --
>>
>> cannot be copyrighted because it is pretty much the only way to implement
>> said functionality?
>
> I am not a lawyer, so...
>
>
>> Still, Pat, if you find the time, could you please simply relicense your
>> patch (I know that you are fine with it, but we need an explicit
>> statement)?

So, I talked to our lawyer.

We are very lucky that the original was posted to SO by our friend
Pat, and you did the right thing to ask Pat to relicense.

Analyzing copyrightability is often more costly than the risk.  Even
if you believe it is not copyrightable, you are bearing the risk
that the court may disagree with you.  Finding a different way to
express the same idea, especially for a small patch like this, is
often cheaper than the cost of copyrightability analysis and the
risk of lawsuit.

If the original is from a friendly party, relicensing is clearly
cheaper and cleaner of the possible choices.